The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a statement calling upon governments to enforce their obligation under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 13 to enforce comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising promotion and sponsorship at international expos and conferences, in order to ensure that such events and programs are tobacco free and that their activities and participants are not sponsored by tobacco companies.

The renewed call by the WHO comes in light of reports of tobacco companies aiming to establish new partnerships with governments to sponsor events or pavilions in world expos, in a country that has already ratified the WHO FCTC. Philip Morris International (PMI) recently announced a partnership with the Government of Switzerland to sponsor the Swiss pavilion in the Dubai World Expo 2020. The Government has reconsidered the partnership, and chosen not to accept the financial support of PMI. The WHO praised this decision and encouraged Switzerland to ratify the WHO FCTC, being one of the few countries that have yet to do so.

The WHO further noted that commitments under Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC to protect public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry, as reflected in a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between WHO and the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE), which “bans” sponsorship of expos by tobacco companies or their agents or affiliates.

The WHO further urged organizers of international expos and conferences adopt smoke-free policies in accordance with Article 8 of the WHO FCTC, to discourage smoking and to protect people from exposure to second-hand smoke

The WHO further reminded governments that they should:

Ban sales of tobacco or tobacco-related products at expos;

Ban sponsorship of expos by tobacco companies or their agents or affiliates; and

Ban advertising and promotion of tobacco products, tobacco company brands, and the use of tobacco at expos.

On 08 April 2019, Philip Morris International (PMI) launched “The Year of Unsmoke”— a call for action to “smokers, nonsmokers, regulators and agents of change… who can empower a smoke-free future”, with a key message: “If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you smoke, quit.

If you don’t quit, change”1 On 21 May 2019, PMI launched “It’s Time to Unsmoke” at Wall Street’s Future of Everything annual event. The initiative calls for authorities and regulators to “have an open conversation and come up with a meaningful solution on how we can Unsmoke the world.”

It is along the same lines of this so-called “corporate transformation” strategy that PMI funded the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) as part of the company’s corporate affairs strategy to shift from harmful combustible cigarettes to its new, so-called “less harmful” product line. PMI, along with other tobacco transnationals, have been aggressively lobbying for the entry into the market of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products and heated tobacco products (HTPs) (e.g., IQOS, TEEPS). The self-professed “socially responsible” activity in the form of Unsmoke campaign is targeted to the public, not just to stockholders,5 and complements the aggressive marketing of the tobacco company’s new products. Read more

]]>Statement of the Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Productshttps://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/statement-secretariat-framework-convention-tobacco-control-protocol-eliminate-illicit-trade-tobacco-products/
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:29:17 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=604The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)1 was negotiated under WHO Constitutional mandate,2 becoming the first modern framework convention with specific public health objectives, but […]

]]>The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)1 was negotiated under WHO Constitutional mandate,2 becoming the first modern framework convention with specific public health objectives, but also addressing the social, economic and environmental impact of tobacco. It currently covers more than 90 percent of the global population. It is an evidence-based treaty addressing both the supply and demand of tobacco products and reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health. It guides and informs the global tobacco control agenda and is a legally binding instrument.

The FCTC’s governing body, the Conference of the Parties (COP), comprises 181 Parties3 as of June 2019, 179 of which are ILO Member States. Parties to the Convention have further negotiated and adopted the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (the Protocol) which entered into force in September 2018, becoming a treaty in its own right. To date, the Protocol’s governing body, the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) comprises 53 Parties. Both governing bodies are served by the Convention Secretariat, an entity with programmatic independence hosted by WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, which is mandated as the global authority concerned with implementation of the FCTC and the Protocol.

The COP and MOP have adopted several decisions, guidelines and policy recommendations that provide necessary background for all sectors of governments to position themselves in regard to tobacco agriculture, tobacco trade, and tobacco’s social, economic and environmental impacts, and consumption.

By being legally bound to the Convention and/or to the Protocol, governments are expected to take a whole-of-government approach when discussing their tobacco regulatory framework and measures including decent working conditions in the tobacco economic sector. As stated in the FCTC’s Article 2.24, “the provisions of the Convention and its protocols shall in no way affect the right of Parties to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements, including regional or subregional agreements, on issues relevant or additional to the Convention and its protocols, provided that such agreements are compatible with their obligations under the Convention and its protocols”.

Policy coherence is at the heart of the FCTC and all sectors of the government are expected to jointly implement the Convention, its Protocols and to use its guidelines and policy options and recommendations for such implementation.

It should be noted that “there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests”, in line with FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines.

Engagement with the tobacco industry is contrary to the United Nations system’s objectives, fundamental principles and values. To this end, the resolutions and documents listed in the Appendix A provide guidance and recommendations stating that the United Nations system shall establish measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry, and where interactions still occur, the recommendations of the guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the Convention shall apply. Furthermore, in line with the ECOSOC resolutions, 5– 6 UN agencies are encouraged to adopt the Model Policy for Agencies of the UN system on preventing tobacco industry interference especially with regards to receiving funding from the tobacco industry.

United Nations agencies, funds and programmes together with international organizations that are observers to the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP) are expected to work as one, ensuring a consistent and effective separation between its activities and those of the tobacco industry. This will preserve its integrity and reputation in promoting development, in line with the relevant ECOSOC resolutions. In this regard, the Convention Secretariat is ready to join forces with the UN and international organizations to support the implementation of the FCTC and its Protocols at all levels.

Policy options and recommendations on economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing (in relation to Articles 17 and 18) were adopted by COP6 (decision FCTC/COP/6(11)) and guides the implementation of these provisions. It recommends ten strategies that governmental can adopt in a whole of government approach to support research, rural development, regulation, in support current tobacco growers and tobacco farm workers. The full document is available in the FCTC website and should be used as the bases for any global agenda on alternative livelihoods to tobacco growing7.

Relevant documents and decisions at the global level that guide discussions about tobacco, including tobacco production are listed on Appendix A.

Question 1: What are the prevailing decent work deficits today in the tobacco sector and which are their main drivers at national and international levels? What has worked and what more needs to be done to promote decent work in the tobacco sector including in tobacco-growing countries? How can the Office support its tripartite constituents to promote decent work in the sector?

The main prevailing deficits today in the tobacco sector include but are not limited to:

1) Unfair contracting

Cigarette retail value is estimated to be worth almost US$ 700 billion.8 However, it is not the workers and farmers who profit. Tobacco growers in LMICs have a particularly weak bargaining position with few options but to sell to only a handful of multinational leaf buyers that control the prices and the market. Cigarette manufacturers and leaf buying companies structured the supply chains in ways that marginalize those at the bottom and largely use opaque contracting systems to obscure their obligations to those who produce their products. This leads to low prices, unfair grading of tobacco leaves, unfair charges for inputs and ultimately not buying the farmers’ crops. Other unfair oligopolistic behavior of leaf-buying firms when buying leaf under non-contract condition (which still exist in many countries) also result in unfair grading of tobacco leaves, low pricing and collusive behavior to force non-contract farmers out of farming or into contract tobacco farming by refusing to buy their crops.

2) Farmers exposed to chemicals and tobacco leaf (nicotine)

Despite the tobacco industry’s rhetoric about occupational safety in farming practices, farmers that work in tobacco growing continue to face harms at different stages of cultivating tobacco. Tobacco growing exposes many workers to grave chemical hazards as the use of protective clothing is uncommon. Just by handling the tobacco plant, tobacco growers and farm workers, often including children, are at risk of green tobacco sickness (GTS), caused by respiratory and dermal absorption of nicotine from contact with tobacco leaves. Tobacco farmers and farm workers are also frequently exposed to extremely high levels of agrochemicals (i.e., insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, fumigants, growth inhibitors, and ripening agents) throughout the growing cycle, many without being aware of the dangers and consequences. These problems have been documented extensively by the ILO.9

3) Child labour

Beyond the right to health, the employment of children in the tobacco industry is in direct opposition with the protection of children from child labour practices, which entail exposure to hazardous substances and may hinder the ability of children to access education by among other aspects, missing the school. Tobacco farmers, particularly the small-holders in developing regions, often struggle to make a living by growing such a labour- and input- intensive crop. Additionally, the expansion of outgrower contracts has led to the economic exploitation and increasing indebtedness of farmers, with small producers having very little bargaining power. This only serves to draw small farmers deeper into tobacco production and leaves families trapped in a cycle of poverty leading to increased reliance on child labour10.

4)Massive environmental degradation caused by heavy chemical use and deforestation

From tobacco cultivation and curing, to cigarette manufacturing, distribution, consumption and discarding, the negative environmental impacts of smoking are substantial and far-reaching, including the use of scarce arable land and water for tobacco cultivation, use of harmful chemicals on tobacco farms, ultimately leading to the inability of farmers to use their land in the long term. It also includes deforestation, carbon emissions from the manufacturing and distribution processes and production of toxic waste and non-biodegradable litter11-12

Article 18 of the FCTC provides that in carrying out their obligations, the Parties agree to have due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories. At its eighth session, the COP noted with concern the findings of the FCTC report “Cigarette smoking: an assessment of tobacco’s global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain, and policy strategies to reduce it” and in decision FCTC/COP8(19) invited Parties to raise awareness, increase collaborations and share best practices to mitigate and address environmental damage caused by tobacco.

5)Ineffective “Corporate Social Responsibility” used by the tobacco industry to prevent regulatory measures to address the problems they cause

The tobacco industry is well known for the use of Corporate Social Responsibility activities and front groups that ultimately paint the industry in a positive light, while allowing countries, workers, and citizens to bear the economic, public health and development costs associated with its business. Studies indicated that the tobacco industry adapted and “greened” their supply chain practices by integrating environmental and labor considerations in the 2000s to serve their CSR campaigns in an effort to legitimize portrayals of tobacco farming as socially and environmentally friendly, while keeping actual practices essentially unchanged13. Furthermore, it continues to make ample use of front groups allegedly representing tobacco growers, such as the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) and creating front groups such as the Eliminating Child Labor in Tobacco Growing Foundation (ECLT) that has been used to allegedly address child labor in tobacco growing areas and to promote the industry participation in the SDG2030 agenda14.

In line with the above, and to address deficits in working conditions in tobacco production, the following recommendations should be considered by governments and international organizations to drive the national and global agenda:

To ensure that contracting systems between the tobacco industry and tobacco growers are transparent and that tobacco workers are not marginalized in the tobacco production cycle. This means making sure there is a fair, independent, arbiter of leaf quality (or grade) and to enforce contracts so farmers are not left with their crop if they’ve signed a contract.

To establish and implement health care protocols focused on tobacco growers’ health threats and available in health care systems in tobacco growing countries. Health surveillance systems and policy-oriented research should be prioritized to assess and study tobacco growing risks to health and to identify preventive and curative measures. The existing personal protective equipment is not adequate15 and needs to revisited.

To eliminate child labor through a number of legal and administrative measures and to promote the education and social inclusion of children who live in tobacco growing areas. This also entails providing farmers who grow tobacco a decent earning, so they can hire help when needed instead of using their children as free help.

Implement article 5.3 and Guidelines by not using the tobacco industry’s corporate social responsibility strategies and front groups to address decent working conditions or programs to eliminate child labour in tobacco growing areas.

To make the tobacco industry liable for the health impact of tobacco use and for the environmental impact of tobacco production by implementing FCTC article 19.

The Convention Secretariat is ready to work hands in hands with ILO and other international bodies to address and support the implementation of these measures.

Question 2: What strategies have worked to support tobacco-growing communities to transition to viable alternative livelihoods and how can ILO, other UN agencies and development partners support tripartite constituents in this respect?

The Convention Secretariat has taken a number of initiatives to support Parties in their FCTC article 17&18 implementation efforts, including:

Organizing a Global Meeting on the implementation of Articles 17 and 18: Taking action to protect tobacco farmers and the environment in Tanzania in 2017 in collaboration with FAO, UNDP and WHO

Supporting four projects in Brazil, Philippines, Zambia and Zimbabwe16

Supporting, in March 2016 and as part of South-South cooperation project, a study visit to Brazil by Jamaica, Philippines and Uruguay to understand the actions of the Brazil National Diversification program for implementation of Article 17.17

Supporting a joint effort by UNDP, the American Cancer Society, and other UN partners to assess the feasibility of a Tobacco Control Social Impact Bond. The project leverages private capital to enable the large upfront investments required to provide farmers a complete range of services needed to move away from tobacco growing (e.g. inputs, extension and marketing services, crop protection, credit, stable product prices, training and skills development).18 ILO are among the agencies engaged in the feasibility study (in progress)

Joining the UN-led global joint programme on alternative livelihoods to tobacco through the work of the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of NCDs (in progress)

Commissioning the “Viable alternatives to tobacco growing: an economic model for implementing Articles 17 and 18” paper. This paper uses a holistic approach in providing a modelling framework for implementing Articles 17 and 18 of the FCTC based on the concept that alternatives to tobacco growing should be sought in the whole economy, not just in the agricultural sector.19

The Convention Secretariat is ready to continue to cooperate with other agencies under the existing platforms to address decent working conditions in tobacco growing.

Question 3: What should tripartite constituents do to ensure policy and programme coherence and convergence at the country level in order to effectively realize national development priorities and to promote decent work in the tobacco sector?

The FCTC emphasizes the need for policy and programme coherence to support the acceleration of tobacco control efforts as part of broader SDG implementation, as outlined in the Global Strategy to Accelerate Tobacco Control: Advancing Sustainable Development through the Implementation of the WHO FCTC 2019-2025.20

The several documents referenced in this paper, make it also clear that the tobacco industry should not be granted any preferential treatment. A number of decisions from UN agencies, programmes, ECOSOC, the Conference of the Parties to the FCTC and other international bodies address the uniqueness of the tobacco industry and provide guidance on how to prevent conflicts of interest. This might also be applicable to the tripartite system, where governments and workers could have preferential treatment over the tobacco industry and be protected from their vested interests. Platforms already exist to promote greater policy and programme coherence for instance through the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of NCDs which comprises a number of UN agencies working together on the topic of tobacco control and alternative livelihoods such as ILO, UNDP, FAO, IFAD, WHO, and UNODC.

Furthermore, it’s recommended that Policy and programme coherence and convergence are obtained by fully implementing the FCTC, its Protocols and Guidelines.

The Policy Options and Recommendations to implement article 17&18 recommend that public financing and incentives directly linked to tobacco growing should be discontinued, in accordance with national law and policies, taking into account possible adverse impact on tobacco growers. It also recommends that tobacco-growing countries should not encourage nor provide any incentives to increase the acreage of land used for cultivating tobacco. Furthermore, they should consider reallocating public funds/subsidies used for tobacco production to alternative livelihoods activities.

In line with article 5.3 Guidelines, Parties should not give preferential treatment to the tobacco industry. This includes not granting incentives, privileges or benefits to the tobacco industry to establish or run their businesses and not provide any preferential tax exemption to the tobacco industry.

It is of paramount importance, in keeping in line with Article 5.3 of the FCTC, that policies, research studies and programmes are not funded or supported in any way by the tobacco industry (including organizations that are funded by the tobacco industry or serve as a front group such as the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-Growing (ECLT) Foundation (ECLT), International Tobacco Grower’s Association (ITGA), and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

Countries can also reach out to intergovernmental entities as part of the UN resident team and nongovernmental organizations working under the umbrella of the observers to COP to develop strategies to protect women, girls and boys from the negative effects of tobacco farming.

Countries are encouraged to link up with research institutions that can provide or conduct useful research in several of the topic areas to advance tobacco growers health, and social and economic development.

Relevant documents and decisions at the global level that guide discussions about tobacco, including tobacco production:

United Nations Treaty Collection showing Parties to the FCTC21

Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 on the protection of public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry22

COP decisions on protection of public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry23,24

Resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on 7 June 2017 concerning the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases and the Model Policy for Agencies of the United Nations system on preventing tobacco industry interference25

Resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on 2 July 2018 concerning the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases and the Model Policy for Agencies of the United Nations system on preventing tobacco industry interference26

COP decisions relating to Articles 17 and 18 on provision of support for economically viable alternative activities and protection of the environment and the health of persons27

COP decision relating to environmental impact of tobacco28

United Nations General Assembly resolutions on Political Declarations of the UNGA on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases29

United Nations General Assembly resolution on Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Indicator 3.a Strengthen the implementation of the WHO FCTC in all countries, as appropriate)30

The Philippines to implement the Pilot Project in support to Art 17 and 18 of the FCTC (Baseline health profiling among tobacco farmers in Regions 1, DA intervention on diversification for the identified areas where profiling is targeted, DOH to coordinate with DENR on data on extent of deforestation in Pilot Muns)Zambia to conduct a pilot study to encourage and support small scale tobacco farmers adopt economically viable alternative livelihoods to tobacco growing in order to prevent negative social, health and environmental impacts on their lives.

]]>Uganda court curtails tobacco companies’ involvement in healthhttps://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/uganda-court-curtails-tobacco-companies-involvement-health/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:20:40 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=593On 28 May 2019, Ugandan court junked a suit filed by British American Tobacco to challenge the constitutionality of Uganda’s Tobacco Control Act which came into force in […]

]]>On 28 May 2019, Ugandan court junked a suit filed by British American Tobacco to challenge the constitutionality of Uganda’s Tobacco Control Act which came into force in 2016.

The order recognized the tobacco companies’ tactics of thwarting policies such as smoke free, graphic health warning, and advertising bans citing its global practice of obfuscating science of harms, funding youth smoking prevention programs that are ineffective, promoting smuggling, and using trade agreements to challenge tobacco control laws.

“That is why government should curtail tobacco companies’ involvement in public health policy. Therefore, legislations like the Tobacco Control Act that seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of the petitioner’s products (tobacco) cannot be said to be unconstitutional,” Justice Kenneth Kakuru said in his judgment.

Among the provisions challenged by BAT are the conflict of interest rules and the penalties accorded, the related two year cooling off period to prevent conflicts of interest, and the non-provision of preferential treatment given to the tobacco companies.

The Tobacco Control Act is the most comprehensive tobacco control policy ever enacted in Uganda and is the only policy in the world known to have a whole section on protecting against tobacco industry interference based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of WHO FCTCArticle 5.3.

Among others, the challenged section sets out rules of conduct for public officials to ensure that dealings with the tobacco industry are necessary for regulation and transparent. This includes rejecting any form of contribution and partnerships with the tobacco industry (and those representing its interests.) The law also includes a long list of information that the government must require from the tobacco industry (including Marketing expenses)

GGTC has summarized a case study on the Article 5.3 compliance of the Ugandan law.

]]>Beverly Hills Ends Tobacco Gamehttps://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/beverly-hills-ends-tobacco-game/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:19:31 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=59120 June 2019 A city that is home to famous celebrities and known for luxury hotels and shopping has announced an end date for tobacco sales. […]

A city that is home to famous celebrities and known for luxury hotels and shopping has announced an end date for tobacco sales. By January 1, 2021, there will be a ban on the sale of most tobacco products in Beverly Hills, California. This policy was adopted following public consultations and recommendations from the city’s Health and Safety Commission, according to a City Council Statement.

Tobacco products include cigarettes, cigars, dissolvable products, electronic cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and water pipes. The ordinance will affect tobacco retailers, including gas stations, convenience stores and pharmacies. However, it will exempt cigar lounges and allow hotels to sell tobacco products to guests.

There are 28 establishments in Beverly Hills that have permits to sell tobacco products, three of which are cigar lounges. Several of these businesses have protested the ordinance, citing loss of revenue, though there is an exemption for retailers that demonstrate the ban would cause undue hardship.

The City Council said it will review the impact on tourism in three years. National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) said the Beverly Hills ordinance will not reduce tobacco usage. “Adults will simply drive to adjacent cities to purchase their preferred tobacco products,” said NATO Executive Director Thomas Briant,

“The fact that Beverly Hills kids will not be able to access cigarettes and e-cigarettes means that there will be a generation of kids who is free from the enslaving addiction to the tobacco industry’s lethal and addictive products. That is something to celebrate. Beverly Hills has found a good way to prevent another tobacco holocaust,” stated GGTC Executive Director Bungon Ritthiphakdee.

]]>Brazil sues tobacco companies to recoup healthcare costshttps://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/brazil-sues-tobacco-companies-recoup-healthcare-costs/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:18:12 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=589On 21 May 2019, the Brazilian government filed a lawsuit against two major tobacco companies to recover healthcare costs due to top 26 diseases scientifically proven to be […]

]]>On 21 May 2019, the Brazilian government filed a lawsuit against two major tobacco companies to recover healthcare costs due to top 26 diseases scientifically proven to be linked with cigarette smoking. It also seeks moral damages and anticipated health costs from the tobacco transnational British American Tobacco PLC and Philip Morris International along with its local affiliate, Souza Cruz LTDA, Philip Morris Brazil Industry and Trade LTD, and Philip Morris Brazil S / A, which have about 90 percent of the Brazilian market.

The civil suit is based on the responsibility and liability of manufacturers of hazardous products for damages caused in light of the deceptive conduct of the tobacco industry in the past decade. These include concealment of information about the link of smoking to cancer, addictive nature of smoking, dangers of passive smoking, false marketing of “light/mild” cigarettes as safer products, and advertising and promotion aimed at the youth.

Healthcare cost recovery suits against the tobacco industry also happened in the US and Canada. In the US, it has resulted in a legal settlement for five tobacco companies to pay about US $206B; in Canada, the claims have reached about $120B.

Brazil is one of the 181 Parties that ratified the WHO FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control of the World Health Organization), a global treaty that, among others, encourages governments to make the tobacco industry criminally and civilly accountable. Article 5.3 of the treaty requires governments to protect its policies from the vested and commercial interests of the tobacco industry which involves avoiding conflicts of interest with the industry, requiring information from it, and making it accountable for its submissions.

The Brazilian government obliges members of its multi-sectoral national committee for tobacco control (CONICQ) to prevent conflicts of interest, ban acceptance of gifts or offers of partnerships from the industry, and disallow giving of preferential treatment to it. Its tobacco control law likewise urges CONICQ to uphold the principles of transparency, primacy of interests of public health, and access to information on the industry, and industry interference in tobacco control.

The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC) applauds Brazil for leading the way in holding the tobacco industry accountable for its actions. Making the industry liable is an effective means to protect policies from the industry’s commercial and vested interests.

]]>GGTC, WHO FCTC host key meetings in Thailandhttps://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/ggtc-fctc-host-key-meetings-thailand/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:17:04 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=58720 June 2019 The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), in partnership with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) Secretariat […]

The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), in partnership with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) Secretariat successfully hosted two key meetings last May 2019 in Bangkok, Thailand: the 4th meeting of the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hubs (KHs), held 13-14 May, and the informal meeting of Article 5.3 experts, conducted 15 May.

The meeting of the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hubs, led by the WHO FCTC Secretariat, discussed ongoing and future work of KHs in light of outcomes and decisions of the 8th Conference of Parties (COP 8) and Meeting of Parties (MOP) and also introduced the Global Strategy to Accelerate Tobacco Control. Amidst discussions of work plans and future KH activities, the GGTC, the WHO FCTC Secretariat’s KH on Article 5.3, highlighted the importance of implementing Article 5.3 within KHs themselves in order to protect the integrity of their work from tobacco industry influence and interference.

This subject was discussed in greater depth during the informal meeting of experts: chaired by Prof. Nuntavarn Vichit-Vadakan, the meeting focused on supporting implementation of Article 5.3 especially in the face of the tobacco industry’s corporate transformation in going “smoke-free” to aggressively promote electronic nicotine devices (ENDs) and heated tobacco products (HTP). Inputs from the informal experts meeting will be used in forming strategies to counter tobacco industry interference at the global and country levels.

]]>Court order against Philip Morris ads in Formula 1https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/court-order-philip-morris-ads-formula-1/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:16:04 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=58528 May 2019, Bangkok – A French court ruled against tobacco advertising in Formula 1. Upon request for interim measures by the French civil society group CNCT (Comité […]

]]>28 May 2019, Bangkok – A French court ruled against tobacco advertising in Formula 1. Upon request for interim measures by the French civil society group CNCT (Comité National Contre le Tabagisme), the judge prohibited Philip Morris Products SA and Ducati Spa Motors from “making any use of the mark, the logo, or the expression ‘Mission Winnow,’ whether contiguous or not to the name “Ducati” “during the MotoGP races in France or on any related communications. The French races were to be held on 17-19 May 2019 at the Bugatti circuit in Le Mans, France. This is despite the court’s acknowledgment of the companies’ claims that they did not intend to use or display such brands at the races. Both companies were also ordered to pay the CNCT the sum of € 10,000 based on civil laws.

The order came after the World Health Organization (WHO) urged sports companies not to allow tobacco advertising and sponsorship of events and urged governments to enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship at sporting events, including when hosting or receiving broadcasts of Formula 1 and MotoGP events. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) Secretariat statement on 13 March 2019 states that “brand stretching” and “brand sharing” could reach billions of viewers, including children.

FCTC Article 13 obliges Parties to the Convention to implement a comprehensive ban (or restrictions) on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship covering those that have the likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly.

Cigarette sponsorship of Formula 1 races had been ubiquitous from 1997 to 2006 but was eventually stopped, owing to pressure from advertising bans. 2018 and 2019 saw the revival of such sponsorships as Philip Morris International partnered with Scuderia Ferrari and launched a “Mission Winnow” using the Marlboro red-and-white chevron, and sponsored team Ducati of MotoGP, while British American Tobacco engaged in a multi-year partnership agreement with McLaren (Formula 1), through the “A Better Tomorrow” campaign to market its new tobacco devices. Formula 1 races can be seen in television and streaming services around the world.

The global tobacco control treaty, ratified by 181 states, obligates governments to protect policies against commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, under FCTC Article 5.3. Its Guidelines urge governments to hold the tobacco industry accountable for its actions and raise awareness of the industry’s tactics. It also recognizes that “nongovernmental organizations and other members of civil society not affiliated with the tobacco industry could play an essential role in monitoring the activities of the tobacco industry.”

]]>State of Kerala adopts a comprehensive policy on FCTC Article 5.3https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/state-kerala-adopts-comprehensive-policy-fctc-article-5-3/
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:12:13 +0000https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/article-53/?p=57823 May 2019, Bangkok – The State of Kerala in India has adopted a comprehensive policy to protect its policies against the tobacco industry’s commercial and vested interests. […]

]]>23 May 2019, Bangkok – The State of Kerala in India has adopted a comprehensive policy to protect its policies against the tobacco industry’s commercial and vested interests. The policy is to be overseen by an intergovernmental committee which involves civil society, and requires all public servants to report on any interactions with the industry and to remove any perceptions of partnership with it. Public officials are also required to declare and divest interests in the industry. Along with the policy is a protocol on holding public meetings with the industry, should such a meeting be “strictly necessary for public interest.” Meeting details will be posted on government website. The intergovernmental committee comprises of the leadership from a variety of sectors affected by tobacco control such as law, tax, revenue, education, information, food safety, and involves two members of civil society.

India is one of 181 Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), which is now embedded in the health goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). The move is consistent with the global treaty obligation (under FCTC Article 5.3) to protect governments against vested and commercial interests of the industry. Treaty guidelines recommend adopting measures to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure transparency; reject partnerships with or contributions from the tobacco industry and require information from it; and, not to give incentives for tobacco business. In 2010, India banned foreign investment in tobacco, and has been reportedly considering stopping tobacco companies from going around such bans to safeguard public health interest.

Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian government devoted a special page on its official website for information relating to meetings with the tobacco industry. The move is part of government efforts to promote open and transparent governance, and is aligned with the WHO FCTC’s Article 5.3 Guidelines, which calls for recommending any meeting with the industry to be transparent.

The Philippines has a similar policy that covers all public servants and is overseen by the Civil Service Commission, a constitutional body that is in charge of ensuring public officers’ compliance with codes of conduct and anti-corruption laws.

The Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC) lauds the State of Kerala for this milestone and for its whole-of-government approach in protecting public interest from tobacco industry interference. The effort to protect policies against industry interference becomes more important as the tobacco industry becomes more aggressive in promoting itself as a “solution to public health,” and in using / funding third parties to represent its interests.

About 21.4% of adults use tobacco in the State of Kerala where tobacco use imposes a significant economic burden estimated at 1514 Crores in 2011. In 2014, the 34-million population state was declared as the first state in India that banned point-of-sale advertising.